Whether the U.S. Supreme Court is obligated to resolve a dispute between Florida citizens and the state judiciary regarding the legislature's authority over court rules

ESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. IN LIGHT OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S ASSERTIONS IN “THE FEDERALIST PAPERS” NO. 80, ' IS IT THE OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CITIZENS OF FLORIDA AND THEIR JUDICIARY REGARDING THE STATE SUPREME COURTS CLAIM THAT THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT FORCE THE JUDICIARY TO OBEY THEIR ENACTED RULES OF COURT? 2.) IS TRIAL PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION AN INSEPERABLE ASPECT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WHEREAS LEGISLATIVELY ENACTED PROCEDURAL RULES OF COURT MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO IN ORDER FOR A COURT TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION TO DECIDE A CASE? 3.) WAS THE APPELLATE COURTS FINDING Mr. CORNELIUS’ CHALLENGE FRIVOLOUS, AND THEN THREATENING SANCTIONS, A VIOLATION OF HIS 187 AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO REDRESS HIS GRIEVANCES AND 14™ AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW? AND JoR -» CAN APPELLATE “PROCEDURAL RULE BARS” BE USED TO AVOID ADDRESSING THIS PETITIONERS TRIAL PROCEDURAL RULE PENALTY INSTRUCTION DEPRIVATION IN LIGHT OF THE JURIES COMMENTS IN GIBSON V. STATE? ” 4.) WAS THE JUDICIALLY AMENDED PROCEDURE RULE 3.390(A) _ INVALIDATED WHEN THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE REPEALED THE STATES SUPERSESSION LAW FS. 25.371 FOR VIOLATING THE NON-DELEGATION DOCTRINE? 5.) ARE FLORIDA JURY INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE JURY MITIGATION AN ASSAULT ON JURY SOVEREIGNTY AND AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE 6™ AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY? 6.) WILL COUNSEL BE ASSIGNED TO ARGUE THESE MERITS BEFORE THE COURT? 1 “FEDERAL JURISDICTION OUGHT TO EXTEND TO ALL THOSE CASES IN WHICH STATE TRIBUNALS CANNOT BE SUPPOSE TO BE IMPARTIAL AND UNBIASED” 2 Gibson V. State, 721 So2d 363, (Fl. 2° DCA 1998); “IF WE KNEW THE LIFE PENALTY WE WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED GUILTY FOR IT” ii